III. QUESTIONS ASKED OF PAUL 7:1—16:12
4. The issue of marketplace food 10:23—11:1
10:19 Paul proceeded to clarify what he meant. He was not saying that sacrifices to idols or idols themselves were anything. That is, sacrifices to idols were not in themselves sinful nor were idols genuine entities. On this point he and the Corinthians agreed. Idols were only pieces of wood or stone, not gods with supernatural powers. Nevertheless these idols represented supernatural powers (v. 20), and so eating cultic meals had genuine significance.
10:20 The power behind pagan religion is demonic (cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37).
Consequently people who sacrifice to idols express solidarity with demonic powers. Eating the food sacrificed to idols means that the people who participated shared in what had been sacrificed to demons just as the Israelites shared in what had been sacrificed to God. The cultic feasts were really sacrifices to demons, so they involved the worship of demons.
10:21 It is inconsistent for a Christian to partake in the Lord's Supper and to take part in pagan religious feasts. In the former he eats and drinks in union with Christ, and in the latter he is in union with demons who direct the devotees to worship idols. What the Lord promotes and what the demons promote are opposite. This inconsistency must be obvious to "wise men"
(v. 15). Christians have a unique relationship with the Lord and with fellow believers, which the Lord's Supper symbolizes. It is, therefore, inappropriate for us to have a similar association with demons and unbelievers (vv. 20-21), which participation in pagan cultic events involves.
10:22 The Israelites provoked the Lord to jealousy by doing just such a thing when they joined in Moabite worship (Num. 25; cf. Deut. 32:17, 21-22).
We are to learn from their experiences. It would be folly to provoke the Lord unless we are stronger than He. If we provoke Him and are not, we can count on His chastening since He is a jealous God.
The Corinthians were arguing for the right to attend pagan religious meals. They even viewed attendance as a way of building their "weaker" brethren. Paul responded that attendance was wrong on two counts: it was unloving, and it was incompatible with life in Christ, which their participation in the Lord's Table symbolized. He forbade any relationship with the demonic. The demonic is not as remote as some modern Western Christians would like to believe.
idols but sold in the marketplace was all right for Christians to eat at home. He himself had eaten such food (9:19-23), and the Corinthians had challenged him for doing so (10:29).
"But the real issues seem to lie deeper than the mere question of eating food. Both the nature of their argument for eating at the temples (8:1, 4, 8) and their criticism of Paul (9:1-3, 19-23) have revealed a basic confusion between absolutes and adiaphora (nonessentials). They had tried to make temple attendance an adiaphoron; for Paul it was an absolute because it was idolatry. At the same time they had confused the true basis for Christian behavior. For them it was a question of knowledge and rights (gnosis and exousia). For Paul it is a question of love and freedom (agape and eleutheria).284
This section's chiastic structure reflects Paul's alternating concern for personal freedom and love for others.
A The criterion stated: the good of others (10:23-24) B Personal freedom explained (10:25-27)
C The criterion illustrated: love governing liberty (10:28-29a) B' Personal freedom defended (10:29b-30)
A' The criterion generalized: that all may be saved (10:33—11:1)
10:23 Earlier Paul had addressed the issue of Christian liberty and had said that all things were lawful for him, but all things were not beneficial (6:12).
Now he went further and clarified that beneficial means beneficial for others, not just self. Thus he sought to bring the rights-conscious Corinthians to their knees.
10:24 The well-being of one's neighbor is of primary importance. The exercise of all one's liberties is of secondary importance (cf. Rom. 15:2; Phil. 2:4).
The Corinthians viewed their freedom as an opportunity to pursue their own interests. Paul viewed it as an opportunity to benefit and build up another person.
10:25-26 It was not wrong to eat meat that pagans had offered in sacrifice to an idol.
Any food for which one thanks God thereby becomes acceptable for human consumption, assuming it is wholesome (v. 30; cf. 1 Tim. 4:3-5).
This was a very un-Jewish viewpoint coming from a Jew. As earlier in this epistle and elsewhere in his writings, Paul appealed to Scripture for a supporting summary statement (Ps. 24:1; 50:12).
Remember Paul was talking about distinctions based on spiritual issues. In Christianity there is no distinction between kosher (fit) and non-kosher (unfit) food (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15). Paul was not talking about
284Fee, The First . . ., p. 477.
distinctions in food based on physical factors such as fat content, calories, and nutritional value. The issue was whether certain foods commend us to or condemn us before God. They do not.
10:27 The invitation in view must be to the home of an unbeliever for a meal rather than to a pagan temple for participation in a religious feast. This seems clear from the next verse. This freedom may have been hard for many Jewish Christians to accept (cf. Acts 10:28; 11:2-3). Nevertheless it belonged to them. It was wise not to ask if someone had offered the meat to an idol. A Christian might pose this question in the home of a pagan host or in the marketplace (v. 25). Not inquiring would obviate the possibility of unnecessary guilt arising in the mind of a scrupulous believer.
10:28-29a A pagan host might warn his Christian guest that the food before him had been offered in an idol temple. The context (v. 27) and the terminology (Gr. hierothyton, "sacrificial meat," rather than eidolothyton, "idol meat,"
the standard Jewish and Christian designation) present a situation in which a Christian is eating privately with a pagan, not in a temple, as in 8:10.
Only in verse 32 does the broader principle of not giving offense to fellow believers arise. The pagan's conscience is not a reference to his convictions about what is right and wrong for himself but his moral consciousness.285 He does not want his Christian guest to be unaware that he is being served food that the Christian might object to and might want to abstain from eating. Another view is that the pagan host is trying to test his commitment to Christ, but this seems less probable. Pagans often associated Christians with Jews at this stage of church history, and many pagans would have assumed that Christians observed the same dietary restrictions as the Jews.
We might think that in such a situation Paul would have advocated exercising Christian liberty to eat the meat, but he did not. He advocated abstaining, not because such meat was out of bounds for believers. It was not out of bounds; Christians could eat such meat. He advocated abstaining for the sake of the pagan's moral consciousness. Specifically, if the Christian ate the meat, the pagan might conclude that his guest was doing something Christians should not do. He would be wrong, of course.
Yet Paul advocated not violating the pagan's understanding of what Christians should or should not do rather than instructing him about Christian freedom at the table.
"A present-day analogy may be imagined if someone with strong principles on total abstention from alcohol were the guest of friends who did not share these principles. He would be well advised not to enquire too carefully about
285Fee, The First . . ., p. 485.
the ingredients of some specially palatable sauce or trifle, but if someone said to him pointedly, 'There is alcohol in this, you know', he might feel that he was being put on the spot and could reasonably ask to be excused from having any of it."286
10:29b This question resumes the thought of verses 26 and 27. Verses 28-29a are somewhat parenthetical being an illustration. We could restate Paul's thought this way. Why should another person's scruples determine my liberty? The answer is, They should because his spiritual welfare is more important than my Christian freedom.
10:30 Paul brought his own conduct in similar situations into the picture. He had eaten non-kosher food with Gentiles, but in the argument preceding this verse he advocated abstaining from such food when eating with pagans.
The key, of course, is that sacrificial meat was only off limits for Paul when it offended the moral consciousness of the pagans he was with, not all the time.
"The blessing offered at one's meal, predicated on God's prior ownership of all things, means that no fellow Christian may condemn another on this question."287
The Christian can give thanks to God for whatever he or she eats, but we should limit our own liberty out of consideration for what other people think is proper. We do not need to alter our convictions for the sake of others even though they speak evil of us, as the Corinthians did of Paul (cf. 9:19-23). Nevertheless we should be willing to change our behavior for the sake of unbelievers.
10:31 What glorifies God? Consideration for the consciences of other people and promotion of their wellbeing does. This contrasts with the observance of distinctions between foods, the satisfaction of one's personal preferences, and insistence on one's own rights. What glorifies God is what puts His preferences, plans, and program first (cf. Col. 3:17). Paul not only advocated asking, "Is this non-moral activity edifying?" (vv. 23-30; cf.
6:12), but "Will it glorify God?"
". . . God's own glory is the ultimate foundation of Pauline ethics (10:31)."288
10:32 Giving no offense means putting no obstacle in the path of a person be he Jew (cf. 9:20) or Gentile (cf. 9:21) so that he might come to faith in Christ.
If he is already a believer, it means putting nothing in his way that would
286Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 100.
287Fee, The First . . ., p. 488.
288Idem, "Toward a . . .," p. 40.
hinder his growth in Christ (cf. 9:22). It is not a matter of simply "hurting someone's feelings."
Paul regarded these three groups as equal in this verse. Therefore he was probably thinking of three religious groups rather than two racial groups and one religious group. If so, he distinguished between Israel and the church in this verse. This distinction is basic to Dispensationalism.
10:33 If we took the first part of this verse out of context, we might conclude that Paul was a "man pleaser" (cf. Gal. 1:10). Obviously he meant he did not allow any of his own attitudes or activities in non-moral areas to create barriers between himself and those he sought to help spiritually.
He tried to practice what he preached about putting the welfare of others first (cf. v. 24). "Saved" in this context probably includes Christians and means saved in the wide sense of delivered from anything that keeps someone from advancing spiritually (cf. Rom. 15:1-3). "Will this non-moral activity profit others and possibly lead them closer to God?"
"Christian freedom is not given to us for our own sake but for the sake of others."289
11:1 Paul recommended that his readers follow his example of exercising and limiting their Christian liberty, glorifying God, and giving no offense, as well as in other areas of their lives (cf. 4:16).290
All of chapters 8, 9, and 10, including 11:1, deal with the subject of the Christian's relationship to food sacrificed to idols. In summary, Paul forbad going to pagan temples for cultic meals. However, he permitted the eating of marketplace meat under normal circumstances. If something is not sinful, it is permissible for the believer, but even so it may be wise to avoid it for the sake of the spiritual welfare of others. The Christian should be willing to limit his or her exercise of his or her Christian liberty because of love for others.
The four principles Paul taught were these. Balance your knowledge with love (ch. 8).
Balance your authority with discipline (ch. 9). Balance your experience with caution (10:1-22). And balance your freedom with responsibility (10:23-33).291
C. PROPRIETY IN WORSHIP 11:2-16
This section and the next (11:17-34) deal with subjects different from meat offered to idols, but Paul did not introduce them with the phrase "now concerning." These were additional subjects about which he wanted to give the Corinthians guidance. He had
289Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 105.
290See Robert L. Plummer, "Imitation of Paul and the Church's Missionary Role in 1 Corinthians," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:2 (June 2001):219-35.
291Wiersbe, 1:594.
evidently learned of the Corinthians' need for instruction in these matters either through their letter to him, from the messengers that brought that letter to him, or from other sources.